Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. This Court in the case of Sojan Francis v. M.G.University (2003 KHC 458) and in the case of S.N.M. College v. S.I. of Police (2007 (1) KLT 282) had held thus:

“8. We find in spite of the declaration of law laid down by this Court in Sojan Francis’ case, supra that private managements and educational institutions have the right to prohibit political activities within the college campus and forbid students from organising or attending meetings other than the official ones, those directions are not being followed in some of the colleges just like in the present case. Students organisations even after the guidelines laid down by this Court in Sojan Francis’ case, supra, are still creating disturbances in the college campus. We make it clear as and when complaint is received from the Management or Principal of an educational Institution in the State the police has got a duty to act and see that those students organisation be kept away from the college campus. Students Unions have no right to set up their units within the college campus. Students Federation of India or other Students Unions have no right to start their Union activities within the college campus since they are bound by the judgment of this Court. If the Union starts any such activities within the college campus in violation of the decision of this Court reported in 2003 KHC 458, and the rules framed by the University, the Management can approach the police officials who will see that such attempts are averted failing which appropriate action would be taken for contempt of Court proceedings.”

2. The same principle was recently reiterated by this Court by order dated 10.10.2017 in Contempt Case (C) No.1597 of 2017. Thus, this Court has been consistently holding that educational institutions cannot be turned into a political battle ground. In an educational institution, there cannot be politics. Any individual student interested in politics is free to indulge in his interest, but, outside the educational institution. These institutions are teaching and learning institutions. The Police would be duty bound to give all assistance in the matter so that upon timely intervention, the Dharnas and Vandalism is put under control. This is what we said in paragraph 2 of our recent decision as well.

2. The next, we would like to observe is that political activities like Dharna, hunger strikes and other practices like Sathyagrah have no place in a constitutional democracy, much less in academic institutions. Anyone indulging in the said activities in an educational institution would make him self liable to be expelled and/or rusticated. Educational Institutions are meant for imparting education and not politics. By their political ambition the political parties cannot hold to ransom the educational institution or the right of the civilized students to receive education. We would only remind ourselves of what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had said while introducing the Constitution for its adoption to the Constituent Assembly on 25.11.1949:

“If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgment we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods of achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”

3. In this matter, the complaint is that a similar order of protection was granted by this Court at the instance of the college in the year 2014. It was virtually a continuing